Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31232386›Full record

SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2019

Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

O-B de Oliveira-Neto, C-A-A Lemos, F-T Barbosa, C-F de Sousa-Rodrigues, F-J Camello de Lima

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Aetiology of early implant failure: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Clinical efficacy of simple taper retentive implants in immediate posterior dental implantation for 5-7 years.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

O-B de Oliveira-NetoDepartment of Morphology, Anatomy Area, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901-Areião, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, Zip-Code: 13414-903, olavobarbosa91@gmail.com.
C-A-A Lemos
F-T Barbosa
C-F de Sousa-Rodrigues
F-J Camello de Lima
Universidade Federal de Alagoas · BRFederal Institute of Education, Science and Technology Alagoas · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlveolar infection is known as a risk factor for implant failure. Current meta-analysis on the theme could not prove statistically that immediate dental implants placed into infected sites have a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of immediate dental implants placed into infected versus non-infected sites. MATERIAL AND

methodsSeven databases were sought by two reviewers. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials that compared the placement of dental implants into infected versus non-infected sites were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were: papers in which the survival rate was not the primary outcome; papers without a control group; studies with less than one year of follow-up; studies whose patients did not receive antibiotic therapy; studies with medically compromised patients; duplicated papers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

resultsOf the 3.253 initial hits, 8 studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis (kappa=0.90; very good agreement). Forest plot for implant failure showed that immediate implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant risk of failure that is almost 3 times higher than when placed into non-infected sites (risk ratio= 2.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 8.56; p= 0.04; 935 implants; i2= 0%). Peri-implant outcomes showed no statistical difference.

conclusionsImmediate dental implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. Peri-implant outcomes were not statistically affected in this intervention.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsImmediate Dental Implant LoadingDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Restoration FailureHumansTreatment OutcomeDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID31232386
PMCPMC6667019
OpenAlexW2954711257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.